November 7, 2008
Happiness
The ideas of cultivating happiness, positive affirmations and generating gratitude are a large part of the San Francisco Bay Area identity. From the 1960’s free love movement to the trendy restaurant, Café Gratitude, whose overtly positive outlook causes them to literally hug you upon arrival, San Francisco wants you to feel good. In the article Cultivating Happiness, Kathy Seligman attempts to tie the strategies of gratitude interventions to the feeling of happiness. While she quotes several academics in this particular field, Seligman’s argument is unclear, if it could be considered an argument at all. Her article is all over the place and her transitions are also unclear. She quotes too many different sources and fails to connect the dots between the gratitude interventions and happiness.
The main problem with Seligman’s article is that the piece is structured like a trend story more than a structured argument. As such, her empirical evidence is limited, and not well supported. It's just the results of a few studies, and she only includes the top line of the findings, with little detail on the methodologies of the studies, so it's hard to scrutinize or refute those studies. For example:
One study conducted via the Internet a few years ago showed that when adults did two exercises for a week - naming three good things and identifying and using personal strengths in a concrete way - they were happier and had less depressive symptoms for six months than did those given placebo interventions.
What exactly is a placebo exercise that one could use to compare that against? Where did these participants live? In what income bracket did they belong? Seligman doesn't even provide enough detail about the studies to look them up yourself if you wanted to, so she provides some empirical evidence, but little backing for it. She chose one family, the Carter/Mclaughlin’s, to interview who achieved positive results from the gratitude interventions.
The Carter/McLaughlin family consists of two parents who earn a decent income that live in the progressive Bay Area. Would this gratitude intervention theory apply to children raised by a single mother working two jobs in Detroit? Comparing the two areas in terms of the economy and education will show dramatically different results.
Detroit is an overwhelmingly poor community; it was ranked as the second poorest US city in 2006 (US). Reported by a local ABC affiliate in January 2008, the Bay Area economy was doing rather well, particularly because half of the products made here are exported, unlike Detroit, who has taken a major hit with the auto industry (Louie). Of course, we now know that everyone is feeling the crunch of the sinking economy, although we can be certain that some communities are feeling it more than others.
The high school graduation rates are very different as well. In Detroit the rate is 29.4% compared to 73.1% of the unified San Francisco district (AP). Would a nightly gratitude intervention over dinner help an overworked and underpaid family feel happy? Unfortunately it isn’t known, as Seligman failed to include any research done on these types of families. It is safe to say that neither money nor a good education will guarantee happiness; however both money and a good education are great things to have and can facilitate happiness.
Another problem with this article is that the technique of gratitude interventions is too similar to prayer. What is prayer if not a daily ritual where you voice things for which you are grateful? For example, the Corrigan family opens their dinner by thanking God for certain things in their lives. This is prayer. People have always done gratitude interventions, just under a different guise. If this strategy actually works, then religion would be the key the happiness. For several thousand years civilizations have prayed to a deity or deities; religion has been influential in governing, morality and general existence. However, throughout the history of mankind, prayer has done little to elevate the actual happiness of humans. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society and gay rights activist from the United Kingdom, states that studies linking religion to happiness are “meaningless” and believes that happiness is largely due to genetics:
Non-believers can't just turn on a faith in order to be happy. If you find religious claims incredible, then you won't believe them, whatever the supposed rewards in terms of personal fulfillment, he said. Happiness is an elusive concept, anyway - I find listening to classical music blissful and watching football repulsive. Other people feel exactly the opposite. In the end, it comes down to the individual and, to an extent, their genetic predispositions (Sato).
Another study notes that most research correlating prayer and happiness is based solely on data from the United States, where churches are prominent both socially and economically. Liesbeth Snoep’s research concludes that both Denmark and the Netherlands are two of the happiest countries in the world and two of the least religious countries also (Snoep). When ranked internationally on levels of life satisfaction, both Denmark and the Netherlands are consistently ahead of the United States (Wilkinson). These studies disprove the popular theory that prayer and happiness go hand in hand.
Finally, as her own writing points out, how we respond to adversity may have a lot more do to with building character than focusing on positives. Techniques that teach strategies for dealing with hardship may be a lot more effective in building overall happiness.
We’ve all heard the old cliché, “when life hands you lemons, make lemonade”. Everyone knows what this means. We need to have the ability within ourselves to deal with adversity and make the best of a not-so-great situation. While this can be difficult, repeating, “life is good” doesn’t seem like a great strategy. There are many ways that one can learn to become resilient, starting with the ability to adapt. Adapting will produce far greater results than repeating positive affirmations. According to the Mayo Clinic, “Resilience will help you thrive” (Mayo).
Seligman writes that she was a “sensitive child” who cried all the time. During her formative years she had to search within herself as to how she would respond to adversity and over the years she developed resilience. However, it is important to note that she also contributes her happiness to her parents, particularly her father as he is “one of the happiest people” she knows. In this statement Seligman links her own happiness to her fathers, which is confusing because this falls into the genetics realm rather than the idea that happiness is cultivated.
Seligman’s evidence is one-sided and her argument is unclear. She fails to connect the dots between the feeling of happiness, the ability to learn how to be happy and gratitude interventions. The article, Cultivating Happiness, comes across as flaky and full of Berkeley-esque new age nonsense that just does not apply to the rest of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment